California Governor Newsom Signs Executive Order on Developing AI Regulation

California’s Governor Gavin Newsom has released an Executive Order concerning the regulation of artificial intelligence including the creation of a “kill switch.”  The Press Release is below and includes a summary of other actions taken by the Newsom administration and the California Legislature concerning AI regulation. 

SACRAMENTO – With Donald Trump and Congress asleep at the wheel, Governor Gavin Newsom is once again taking the lead to strengthen AI safety for all Americans. Today, the Governor issued an executive order to dramatically accelerate the implementation of new third-party oversight of safety and security risks in AI systems, as well as independent audits. 

The executive order convenes a group of world-leading experts to provide, within two months, a guide for California to reinforce and strengthen its AI safety and security laws. Proposals under consideration include requiring independent third parties to write safety plans for frontier AI companies, as well as requiring companies to develop an emergency shutoff, or “kill switch,” for frontier models.

California leads the nation in oversight of emerging frontier technologies, with laws addressing nearly every major area of AI policy: frontier-model safety, independent oversight, children and companion chatbots, privacy, deepfakes, fraud, cybersecurity, workers and government deployment.

The federal government’s abject failure to create any form of meaningful AI oversight or accountability should alarm every American, especially when AI CEOs themselves are begging for regulation. 

We’re not waiting to act – we’re going to speed up our work on substantial and responsible AI oversight before it’s too late. We’re going to do this thoughtfully but with urgent velocity; the stakes are too high to wait or delay action. 

While Washington abdicates its responsibility to protect Americans, California is building on the strongest AI regulatory framework in the nation. California has already built a national model, and our policy should be the national baseline.

Governor Gavin Newsom

The executive order comes after recent alarming incidents, including the Hugging Face attack, prompting many Americans, including leaders in the AI industry, to call on the industry to pace the development of AI systems and models and push for more stringent government regulations to address security and safety risks. In response, the federal government has done nothing. No federal law requires AI companies to report dangerous incidents when they happen, and President Trump has rejected calls for new regulations that would increase security and protect the health, safety, and well-being of the American people. 

Read the executive order here. 

Decisive action to strengthen AI oversight 

California provides a model for national standards around AI safety. Last week, Governor Newsom signed legislation creating first-in-the-nation safeguards and accountability measures to strengthen California’s nation-leading framework. The Governor signed into law Senate Bill 813 (McNerney),  establishing a framework for independent verification organizations that can assess AI systems and models for safety and risk. Governor Newsom also signed AB 1405 (Bauer-Kahan), creating a state registry for AI auditors that assess AI systems and models for compliance with state law and establishing standards for their independence, transparency, and integrity.

Today’s executive order takes these actions even further. Through the order, the Governor is directing the Government Operations Agency: to accelerate the implementation timelines for SB 813 and AB 1405, and, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, to convene national experts to develop recommendations for potential changes to further strengthen state law to:

• Require frontier AI companies to embed a designated independent verification organization onsite in their labs to conduct regular audits and evaluations.
• Require that the AI safety frameworks, transparency reports, and risk assessments that frontier AI companies are required to file under state law are verified pursuant to standards deemed adequate by an independent verification organization. 
• Advance the creation of a “kill switch” for frontier models, with the efficacy of the switch verified on an ongoing basis by an independent verification organization.
• Update definitions of critical safety incidents to include loss-of-control incidents such as the Hugging Face attack.

An AI safety model for the nation

Under Governor Newsom’s leadership, California is already far ahead of every other state in regulating AI, creating a guidebook for the nation. The Governor is calling on Congress and President Trump to review and adopt the state’s framework, or use its nation-leading regulation as a floor, not a ceiling, for the benefit and safety of all Americans. 

California’s nation-leading framework 

Beginning with his first-in-nation 2023 executive order on generative AI, Governor Newsom has pursued executive action, legislation passed in partnership with the Legislature, regulation, procurement, and public-private partnerships to address nearly every major area of AI policy:

✅ Frontier AI safety: In 2025, Governor Newsom signed SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, the nation’s first AI safety law. It requires frontier AI developers to publicly disclose safety frameworks, report specified critical safety incidents to the state, and protect whistleblowers who report serious risks.

✅ Independent AI oversight: In 2026, Governor Newsom signed SB 813, making California the first state in the nation to establish a framework for certifying independent verification organizations with sufficient expertise and demonstrated independence from AI companies to objectively assess AI systems and models for safety and risk. He also signed AB 1405, establishing a state registry for AI auditors and standards for their independence, transparency and integrity.

✅ Child safety standards for AI companions: This year, Governor Newsom signed the bipartisan Adam’s Law, requiring safeguards around companion chatbots used by children, including suicide and self-harm crisis protocols, parental controls and notifications when safety settings are disabled. It is the first law in the country requiring independent child-safety audits and comprehensive risk assessments prior to release. California also enacted laws to ban toys containing AI companion chatbots for five years; prohibit use of student personal information to train AI models; and expand protections against AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

✅ Social media and children: Governor Newsom signed the strongest-in-nation legislation prohibiting social-media companies from providing users under 16 with addictive features including autoplay and algorithmic feeds based on user history and profiles. California has enacted nation-leading requirements for responsible AI and social media use for children, including warning labels for young users, required age verification signals, guidance to protect kids from after-school cyberbullying, and prohibiting online platforms from knowingly providing an addictive feed to a minor without parental consent.

✅ Deep fakes and synthetic content: In nation-leading action, California banned and cracked down on sexually explicit deepfakes, required AI watermarking, addressed deceptive AI-generated election content and required transparency around AI training data. 

✅ Protecting privacy and civil liberties: Governor Newsom signed the Delete Act, a first-in-the-nation privacy law allowing Californians to direct registered data brokers to delete their personal information. California subsequently launched DROP, which enables people to submit a single deletion request to registered data brokers. In March 2026, Governor Newsom also issued an executive order strengthening privacy and civil-liberties protections for state AI procurement. CalPrivacy has separately adopted protections involving automated decision-making technology.

✅ Workers and AI disruption: Governor Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation executive order addressing AI’s economic and labor impacts, including expanded tracking of AI’s economic effects and work to adapt job-training and public-benefit programs. California has also launched an AI Unemployment Tracker, and solicited statewide public input on AI’s economic impacts through Engaged California.

✅ Cybersecurity: Governor Newsom launched a first-in-the-nation AI Cyber Defense Program to use AI to identify vulnerabilities, harden networks and support incident response. California is also establishing an AI Cybersecurity Officer in each agency and working with frontier AI companies and critical-infrastructure partners on response protocols and tabletop exercises.

✅ AI-enabled fraud: Governor Newsom launched a Tech Fraud Task Force to combat AI-enabled fraud. California has also acted against AI-generated robocall scams and addressed algorithmic pricing through state antitrust law.

 

OxFirst Club’s 15th IP & Competition Forum at the University of Oxford and 16th IP & Competition Forum at Residenz Palace Munich to Examine Global Patent Enforcement

 

OxFirst Club’s 15th IP & Competition Forum will take place on 13–14 January 2027 at the University of Oxford, followed by the 16th IP & Competition Forum on 3–4 June 2027 at the Residenz Palace in Munich. Together, the two Fora form a connected 2027 programme examining how patent enforcement, licensing and competition policy are shaping global business strategy.

The 2027 programme will bring together senior judicial, institutional and market perspectives from across the global patent ecosystem. The wider OxFirst Forum community has included senior representatives from Amazon, BMW Group, BSH Hausgeräte, ByteDance, Dell Technologies, Deutsche Telekom, Ericsson, Giesecke+Devrient, Harman, HP, Huawei, LG Electronics, Nokia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, Samsung, Xiaomi, RPX and Access Advance.

The Oxford Forum will set the international reference point. It will bring together senior judicial and institutional perspectives from the UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the High Court, the Unified Patent Court, the Commercial Court of Brazil and the Patent Court of Korea, alongside industry leaders, competition authorities, patent offices and private practice.

The Munich Forum will then carry the discussion into the European enforcement landscape, with a particular focus on the Unified Patent Court, the Munich Regional Courts, the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office and perspectives from judges in the United States. Taking place in one of Europe’s most important patent litigation centres, the Munich Forum will examine how European institutions are shaping the future of patent enforcement, competition policy, patent quality and licensing strategy.

The two Fora are linked by one central question: how can global patent enforcement become more predictable in a fragmented world order?

Patent disputes are no longer confined to individual courtrooms or national borders. A decision before a national court, the Unified Patent Court or a court outside Europe can influence settlement dynamics, licensing negotiations, product launches and commercial behaviour in several jurisdictions at once. This is particularly visible in disputes involving standard-essential patents, FRAND licensing, injunctions, global rate-setting, cross-border enforcement and competition policy.

At Oxford, the discussion will focus on global patent strategy and the broader interaction between courts, regulators, markets and technology companies. The Forum will examine how leading courts, including the UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and international patent courts, approach questions of injunctions, licensing conduct, jurisdiction, proportionality and the economic consequences of patent enforcement.

In Munich, the focus will become more European and UPC-centred. The 16th Forum will examine how the UPC is developing as a forum for patent enforcement, how the Munich courts continue to influence European patent litigation, and how the EPO Boards of Appeal contribute to questions of patent quality, validity and institutional coherence. It will also consider how European patent enforcement interacts with competition law, market access and global technology licensing.

The corporate participation reflects the practical importance of patent enforcement and licensing for companies operating in fast-moving, innovation-driven markets. For these companies, patent disputes are not isolated legal events. They affect product strategy, market access, licensing negotiations, investment decisions, supply chains and the economics of innovation.

The University of Oxford setting gives the January Forum a distinctive platform for serious discussion across law, economics, policy and business. The Residenz Palace in Munich gives the June Forum a European institutional focus, close to the courts and patent institutions that are central to the next phase of patent enforcement in Europe.

Between Oxford and Munich, the OxFirst Expert Groups will provide a bridge for continued discussion. They will allow selected participants to carry forward the issues raised in Oxford and refine them ahead of the Munich Forum, creating a year-round structure for dialogue on patent enforcement, licensing, competition policy and innovation governance.

“Patent enforcement has become a matter of international strategy,” said Professor Roya Ghafele, convenor of the Forum and Managing Director of OxFirst. “Injunctions, standard-essential patents and global licensing disputes are no longer isolated legal questions. They shape market access, competition and the global economic order.”

The purpose of the 2027 programme is not merely to discuss legal doctrine. It is to understand how patent enforcement now interacts with markets, competition and international economic strategy. Businesses need legal certainty to invest, license and innovate. Courts, patent offices and regulators, meanwhile, face the difficult task of balancing effective patent protection with competition, market access and technological diffusion.

In a fragmented world order, patents have become more than technical rights. They are instruments that can influence bargaining power, market entry, investment and industrial positioning. OxFirst Club’s 2027 IP & Competition Fora will provide a high-level platform for examining these issues from judicial, institutional, industry and economic perspectives.

The 15th IP & Competition Forum will take place on 13–14 January 2027 at the University of Oxford.

The 16th IP & Competition Forum will take place on 3–4 June 2027 at the Residenz Palace in Munich.

To join OxFirst Club, register interest, or explore speaking and sponsorship opportunities, visit https://oxfirst.club/ or email info@oxfirst.com.

U.S. Undersecretary and Director John A. Squires Provides Remarks on U.S. Innovation

On September 15, 2026, the Undersecretary for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office John A. Squires gave a speech titled, “Protecting U.S. IP and Tech Leadership through International Trade Policy Tools,” at the USC Gould School of Law IP conference in Washington DC.  Some of his comments concerned the United States’ work and intentions with respect to its international agenda, AI regulation and name, image and likeness rights.  The full speech is available, here.  Here are parts of his remarks:

At the 68th Assemblies of the Member States of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held in July, we insisted that the organization focus on the needs of companies and individuals who are managing increasingly complex patent portfolios.

We want the Patent Cooperation Treaty, signed by 159 contracting states, to work not only for the big guys, but for the small and medium-sized companies and individuals who are on the forefront of innovation.

We want WIPO to move past the outdated and archaic requirements that discourage trademark owners’ full use of the Madrid system in pursuing important branding rights across the globe.

We also were instrumental in kicking off WIPO’s “IP Growth Initiative,” focusing on using IP as a strategic “power tool” to drive innovation and economic growth. And not in 10 years, but now.

The world’s inventors, creators, and entrepreneurs cannot wait. The onrush of technology has never even heard of the word “wait.” Innovation only knows “now.”

In every global forum, and through our IP attachés located in all of the important global markets, we have insisted on ensuring that it is well understood that robust IP protection fosters innovation, incentivizes research and development, maintains competitive markets, and ensures fair and appropriate renumeration for our innovators and rights holders—reciprocation and respect.

And we have made the case in every international forum that IP systems, such as the one we have in America, are the strongest engines for growth ever created, both for economies and for personal accomplishment and success. We have also taken steps to broaden the base of IP rights holders in our own country.

We just opened an Emerging Technologies Office in San Francisco as part of the agency’s efforts to advance the use of AI and engage with the AI industry.

This office serves as a hub to convene our stakeholders involved in AI, enabling them to work with federal officials on how best to steer AI adoption for American dominance.

It will help U.S. companies gain a foothold in the federal marketplace and assist them in exporting their AI products and systems to other countries.

And we are focused on protecting the rights of individuals.

For the first time ever, we participated in the NFL Draft in Pittsburgh to work with student athletes and others about the legal right to their name, image, and likeness. And like I said, filings are up 11%.

This is a huge and growing area of IP protection, and we want to make sure people are aware of their potential.

Of course, challenges remain. For example, earlier this year, a federal court of appeals held that trademarks lack the full set of constitutional protections afforded physical property rights because trademarks are “intangible property.”

That case involves a trademark registered by the USPTO years ago in the name “Roberto Clemente,” one of Puerto Rico’s favorite sons who was a hall of fame baseball player and humanitarian who died in a plane crash bringing aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua. I remember vividly when his plane went down.

The case is now on appeal at the Supreme Court, and it is certainly a matter of substantial interest to many people in my office, for we think not only that the intangible property rights issued by our office are deserving of full constitutional protections as property, but also that such rights are essential to a modern, 21st-century economy. Just ask the S&P 500.

Beyond personal branding such as the one memorializing Roberto Clemente, the legal protections afforded by IP laws do much more. They enable our nation’s gifted writers, musicians, and artists to break into regional and national markets, and for those who are truly gifted to reach much broader audiences around the globe.

Book Review: Start Up Campus: How UC Berkeley Became An Unexpected Leader in Entrepreneurship and Startups

I’ve meant to write about this book for some time, but I’ve been chasing squirrels on other hills.  I’ve decided today to finally get it done.  The University of California, Berkeley, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Council, has published Startup Campus: How UC Berkeley Became an Unexpected Leader in Entrepreneurship and Startups in 2025--a helpful book.  The book is a collection of information concerning UC Berkeley’s development of an ecosystem to foster the creation of startups.  There is historical information concerning the various technical advances by Berkeley researchers and the companies they created in fields including microprocessors, personal computers, biotechnology, structural and earthquake engineering software, relational databased, networked computing, electronic design automation, quantitative investing, energy bars, data storage and networking controller market, internet search and content delivery market, and enterprise software for learning and talent management.  The book also describes some of the process of the university involving most if not all of the academic units in entrepreneurship which seems to “grease the wheels” politically of the continuation and deepening of industry involvement and the development of practical applications and direction for research, including commercialization. The book concludes with insights and advice for replicating Berkeley's success. There is also an accompanying website to the book at Startup Campus: How UC Berkeley Became an Unexpected Leader in Entrepreneurship and Startups | Innovation & Entrepreneurship.  And, it’s (apparently) available for free! A very helpful book and you can't beat the price.  

Cyberhacking Indictment Unsealed Involving Alleged Theft of University IP

On August 18, 2026, the US Department of Justice unsealed an indictment concerning cyberhacking campaigns conducted against universities around the world, governmental entities and companies by an Iranian hacking group.  The press release states, in part:  

Mabna Institute Hackers Attacked Systems Belonging to Hundreds of Universities, Companies, and Other Victims to Steal Research, Academic and Proprietary Data, and Intellectual Property

A 14-count superseding (S2) indictment was unsealed today charging 17 members of the Mabna Institute, an Iran-based company that, since at least 2013, has conducted a coordinated campaign of cyber intrusions into computer systems for 144 U.S.-based universities, 178 foreign universities, at least 42 U.S.-based private sector companies, at least 11 foreign private sector companies, at least five U.S. federal and state government agencies, and at least two non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The Mabna Institute stole more than 31 terabytes of academic data and intellectual property from these universities, as well as the email accounts of employees at the private sector companies, government agencies, and NGOs. The defendants conducted many of these intrusions on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), one of several entities within the government of Iran responsible for gathering intelligence, as well as other Iranian government and university clients. Nine of the 17 defendants charged in the S2 indictment were previously charged in a 7-count indictment announced in March 2018. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman.

“The superseding indictment alleges that, at the behest of entities including the IRGC, these defendants hacked into universities and other research institutions worldwide, including the United States, stealing at least 31 terabytes of information and intellectual property of untold value,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg. “The National Security Division is committed to protecting the United States from such predators and will pursue those who perpetrate such crimes for as long as it takes to bring them to justice.”

“Today’s charges, which include eight additional defendants, reveal the broader network allegedly behind a sweeping, state-sponsored campaign to steal research and intellectual property from American universities, businesses, and government institutions,” said U.S. Attorney Jamie McDonald for the Southern District of New York. “More than eight years after making the original indictment public, these charges make clear that the passage of time will not deter us from identifying and pursuing those who target the United States from abroad. Cyber operations have become a central instrument of national power, and attacks on American and allied institutions carry direct consequences for our security and economic strength. This office and our partners will continue to protect American innovation and pursue accountability for the individuals behind these attacks.”

“These defendants allegedly built and profited from a sprawling hacking-for-hire operation that targeted the intellectual property of American and allied universities, companies, and government agencies for the benefit of the Iranian government,” said Assistant Director Brett Leatherman of the FBI’s Cyber Division. “Today’s charges make clear to cyber adversaries everywhere: the FBI’s memory is long, and time will not blunt our resolve to pursue justice. The FBI will continue working with law enforcement and private sector partners to identify malicious cyber actors, disrupt their operations, and impose real cost on them, wherever they operate.”

. . . University Hacking Campaign

The Mabna Institute, through the activities of the defendants, targeted more than 100,000 accounts of professors around the world. They successfully compromised approximately 8,000 professor email accounts across 144 U.S.-based universities, and 178 universities located in foreign countries, including Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The campaign started in approximately 2013, continued through at least December 2017, and broadly targeted all types of academic data and intellectual property from the systems of compromised universities. Through the course of the conspiracy, U.S.-based universities spent more than approximately $3.4 billion to procure and access such data and intellectual property.

The members of the conspiracy used stolen account credentials to obtain unauthorized access to victim professor accounts, which they used to steal research, and other academic data and documents, including, among other things, academic journals, theses, dissertations, and electronic books. The defendants targeted data across all fields of research and academic disciplines, including science and technology, engineering, social sciences, medical, and other professional fields. The defendants stole at least approximately 31.5 terabytes of academic data and intellectual property, which they exfiltrated to servers outside the United States that were under the control of members of the conspiracy.

In addition to stealing academic data and login credentials for the benefit of the Government of Iran, the defendants also sold the stolen data through two websites, Megapaper.ir (Megapaper) and Gigapaper.ir (Gigapaper). Megapaper was operated by Falinoos Company, a company controlled by Abdollah Karima, and Gigapaper was also affiliated with Karima. Megapaper sold stolen academic resources to customers within Iran, including Iran-based public universities and institutions, and Gigapaper sold a service to customers within Iran whereby purchasing customers could use compromised university professor accounts to directly access the online library systems of particular U.S.-based and foreign universities.

Private Sector and Governmental and Non-Governmental Organization Hacking Campaigns

In addition to targeting and compromising universities, the defendants targeted and compromised and exfiltrated employee email accounts for at least five U.S. federal and state government agencies, at least 42 U.S. based private sector companies, at least approximately 11 foreign companies based in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and various governmental and non-governmental organizations within the U.S., including the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the State of Hawaii, the State of Indiana, the United Nations, and the United Nations Children’s Fund.

United States Moving Forward with Privateering Against Cybercrime

On August 12, 2026, President Trump issued a Presidential Memoranda essentially providing the groundwork for a government program sanctioning private industry to pursue international cyber criminals engaged in hacking.  The Presidential Memoranda is available, here.  The Memoranda states, in part:

The American private sector is the most innovative and technologically advanced in the world, and its scale, speed, and capacity secure a critical offensive cyber advantage for the United States.  Yet, American businesses’ innovative capabilities have historically been underutilized in efforts to identify and disrupt criminal networks operating in cyberspace.  Thus, it is the policy of the United States to use all instruments of national power, including the innovative capabilities of the private sector, to combat cybercrime.  By partnering with vetted United States companies subject to the direction and oversight of the Federal Government, we will enhance our ability to counter TCO threats and combat transnational cybercrime, fraud, and other predatory schemes against American citizens.

FRAND licensing needs a taxonomy: valuation absent context is misvaluation

The World Intellectual Property Organization's recent report on SEP valuation methodologies provides a useful overview of comparable licences, bottom-up valuation and top-down approaches. However, in my view, the most important issue in FRAND valuation remains underexplored: the need to distinguish between fundamentally different categories of licensing and commercial arrangements.

This article argues that much FRAND analysis suffers from false commensurability. Bilateral licences, cross-licences, collective licensing platforms, patent pools, paid-up lump-sum settlements and royalty-free regimes are frequently converted into common metrics such as ad valorem rates or dollar-per-unit royalties and then treated as directly comparable. In the process, critical commercial context can be lost in translation.

Using examples including Nokia's agreements with Apple and Microsoft, Avanci's $32-per-vehicle automotive licensing model, public licensing programmes from Qualcomm and InterDigital, and recent FRAND decisions including Samsung v ZTE, Optis v Apple and InterDigital v Lenovo, I examine how royalty metrics, payment structures, bargaining conditions and strategic objectives can materially affect negotiated outcomes.

I also discuss the risks associated with cross-licence unpacking, portfolio-strength-ratio methodologies, patent counting, manufactured comparables, and the tendency to treat complex licensing agreements as if they can be translated mechanically into equivalent royalty rates.

My central thesis is simple:

The first question in FRAND valuation should not be "Which methodology should we use?" but "What exactly are we trying to value?"

The resulting rates may appear objective and comparable, but instead still reflect the bargaining asymmetries, strategic objectives, risk allocations and other distortions that shaped the original deal.

Download the full article from SSRN, here.

US Department of Justice Remarks Regarding IP and Global Competition

On July 8, 2026, the US Department of Justice issued a press release containing the remarks of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Dina Kallay at the Hudson Institute Forum for Intellectual Property.  The remarks describe the US Department of Justice’s position on numerous cases in which the Department has filed a statement of interest.  Notably, the remarks also address IP and global competition:

Intellectual Property Enforcement Strengthens Global Competition

Now that we have discussed an example of our domestic IP dance, I want to turn to an international example which demonstrates that strong protection of IP rights benefits robust market competition worldwide.

Each year the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issues a Special 301 Report, as required by Congress, which is a review of the global state of IP rights protection and enforcement.[29] Internationally, failure to enforce IP laws as required under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights[30] (“WTO TRIPS Agreement”) creates barriers to trade that negatively impact U.S. companies and consumers. Without robust IP protection and enforcement globally, American innovators cannot “defend their rights when their IP is stolen or infringed” and, consequently, the benefits of that IP cannot flow back to the United States economy.[31] Effectively, failure to enforce IP laws creates a non-tariff barrier to trade, as it can subsidize domestic industry or increase costs on foreign industry.

The recently issued 2026 Special 301 Report, highlighted several “emerging global trends [that] have the potential to improperly and unfairly harm U.S. innovators” related to patents and standards.  The Intellectual Property and Standards section of the report[32] underscores the importance of IP protection to U.S. leadership in developing next-generation technologies, and states unequivocally that “American innovation leadership, economic competitiveness, and national security are threatened by proposals or actions that undermine the effective enforcement of patent rights.” The Report went on to identify three emerging global trends that improperly harms U.S. innovators:

• Court rulings called “anti-suit injunctions” that bar U.S. companies from enforcing their patents anywhere else in the world; 
• Judicial or administrative procedures that compel innovators to grant, without their consent, global licenses to patented technologies on terms set by the court or the government; and
• Judicial or legislative efforts to prohibit the seeking or availability of injunctions against patent infringement, the core remedy that allows patent holders to enforce their rights. 

The Report’s findings dovetail with the antitrust policy principles I highlighted earlier, including the importance of robust intellectual property protection both domestically and globally; an unfettered intellectual property marketplace; and the unhindered availability of injunctions and other remedies against infringement. They are also consistent with globally recognized WTO treaty obligations.[33] So it’s a case where, while arriving from different angles, antitrust and international trade policies converge around the same principles.   

The full remarks are available, here. 

Join Online: 14th Intellectual Property and Competition Forum The Global Patent Chess Game: International Patent Strategy in a Fragmented World Order 23–24 June 2026 | Munich & Online

 

The 14th IP & Competition Forum offers a series of highly topical online sessions on the changing architecture of global patent litigation, enforcement, licensing and competition policy.

Register for ALL ONLINE sessions here:
https://www.oxfora.org/webinar-14th-forum-live/

 

---

Injunctions at the Centre of Gravity in Global Patent Strategy
23 June 2026 | 08:30 London time

Moderator
Otto Licks, Founding Partner, Licks Attorneys

Speakers
Dr Thomas Dreiser, Chief IP Litigation Counsel, EMEA, Huawei
Chris Longman, Vice President, Legal Counsel, Qualcomm
Tom Brown, Head of IP Litigation, Dell
Lara Rogers, Head of IP Disputes, Amazon

---

Long-Arm Jurisdiction in Patent Disputes after BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux
23 June 2026 | 09:30 London time

Moderator
Dr Constanze Krenz, Partner, DLA Piper

Speakers
Dr Corin Gittinger, Partner, Freshfields
Alessandro Orsi, VP Legal, Associate General Counsel IP, HP
Dr Clemens Heusch, VP, Head of Global Litigation and Disputes, Nokia
Gerhard Tschiedel, IP Transactions Manager, Giesecke+Devrient

---

Competition Perspectives, LNGs, Standards & Patent Licensing
23 June 2026 | 15:00 London time

Moderator
Le Chen, Senior Director, IP Policy & Dispute Resolution

Speakers
Paul Bridgeland, Policy Officer, DG Competition, European Commission
Dr Felix Engelsing, Director, Bundeskartellamt
Dr Thomas Buchholz, Senior Expert Digital IP, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH
Alexander Prenter, Policy Director, Fair Standards Alliance
Collette Rawnsley, VP, IP Policy & Advocacy, Nokia

---

China: Litigation, Licensing & Global Influence
24 June 2026 | 07:30 London time

Keynote
Dr Juan He — Judge, Intellectual Property Court, Supreme People’s Court of China

Moderator
Jing Xu, Partner, King & Wood

Speakers
Na Wei, GM of Corporate Business Development & IP Strategy, Xiaomi
Vivienne Li, Head of Patent Licensing, ByteDance
Collette Rawnsley, VP, IP Policy & Advocacy, Nokia
Dylan Li, Head of European IPR Department, Huawei

---

Courts & Rate Setting
24 June 2026 | 11:00 London time

Keynote
Fabian Hoffmann — Judge, German Supreme Court

Moderator
Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Competition and Policy Counsel, Access Advance

Speakers
Shuang Cheng, Cellular Licensing Lead, Xiaomi
Michele Baccelli, Partner, Hoffmann Eitle

---

UPC and EPO Case Law: Convergence, Divergence and Practical Consequences — Novelty, Inventive Step & Added Matter
24 June 2026 | 14:00 London time

Practitioner Speakers
Dr Natalia Wegner, Partner, Carpmaels & Ransford
Bernhard Thum, Partner, Thum & Partner

Judge Speakers
Dr Stefan Wilhelm — Judge, Unified Patent Court
Dr Christoph Schober — Judge, Unified Patent Court
Dr Kemal Bengi — Chair of the Board of Appeal 3.5.05, European Patent Office

---

Judges’ Perspectives on International Understanding in Patent Disputes
24 June 2026 | 15:45 London time

Speakers
Prof. Peter Meier-Beck — Presiding Judge (ret.) & UPC Advisory Committee, German Supreme Court / Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
Judge Victor Torres — Judge, Court of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Dr Juan He — Judge, Intellectual Property Court, Supreme People’s Court of China

---

These sessions address some of the most important questions in international patent enforcement today: injunctions as tools of global leverage, cross-border patent enforcement, long-arm jurisdiction, forum strategy, SEPs, FRAND, standards, patent licensing, competition policy, China’s growing influence, rate setting, UPC and EPO case law, and international judicial understanding in patent disputes.

The Forum brings together judicial perspectives from the German Supreme Court, the Unified Patent Court, the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal, the Supreme People’s Court of China, the Court of Rio de Janeiro and the Landgericht Munich, alongside leading voices from industry, patent offices, competition authorities, private practice and academia.

Patrons include: Licks Attorneys, Hogan Lovells, Nokia, RPX, Freshfields and Vossius Brinkhof.

More information: https://www.oxfora.org
Contact: info@oxfirst.com

FRAND commitments include no right to a platform licence

In my recent article, Are patent pool royalty rates FRAND?, I argued that patent pool and platform rates are structurally unsuited to serve as benchmarks for bilateral FRAND licensing. That analysis focused on pricing (i.e. royalty rates) — specifically, on the risk of inferring inapplicable rates from fundamentally different licensing arrangements.

This article addresses a logically prior question now before the England and Wales (“UK”) Supreme Court in Tesla v InterDigital / Avanci: Before any court determines whether a platform licence is FRAND, does it have jurisdiction and is there any entitlement to have those terms determined in court?

That question is not merely procedural. It goes to the meaning and scope of FRAND.

The point is not that platform rates are “sub-FRAND” or otherwise deficient. On the contrary, they may be entirely FRAND within their own commercial context. The point is that FRAND operates through different processes in different licensing structures, and those processes should not be conflated.

FRAND does not necessarily include a right to a platform licence. Recognising that preserves both the integrity of the ETSI undertaking and the legitimacy of alternative licensing institutions developed by the market.

My full 5-page article can be downloaded here.

Are patent pool royalty rates FRAND?

This question sits at the intersection of licensing practice, competition policy, and judicial interpretation. Courts, regulators, and industry participants often look to patent pools for guidance in determining FRAND[1] rates. Yet doing so risks a fundamental mistake. Patent pool rates — whether characterised as FRAND, sub‑FRAND,[2] or otherwise — are structurally unsuited to serve as benchmarks for bilateral licensing.

I asked several attendees this headline question at the recent Patents and Standards conference in London — in informal conversations during coffee breaks. I also posed the question to fellow panellists there in our session entitled Platforms and Pools: Where Next?  While Sisvel panellist Matteo Sabattini was proud to inform us emphatically that courts had found patent pool Sisvel’s rates FRAND, most others answered equivocally.

This question is also under consideration by the UK Supreme Court. In December 2023, Tesla raised proceedings seeking, among other requests, a declaration of FRAND terms for a license to SEPs in the Avanci 5G Platform. Before opining on FRAND terms, the UKSC must determine if those are applicable in that case.

There’s extensive effective and efficient SEP licensing based on FRAND commitments — bilaterally and in patent pools. However, pool rates are typically below bilateral FRAND rates for various reasons. For example, pooling is well-known to reduce transaction costs and so these savings can be passed on in lower royalty rates.

Pooling rates that might be considered sub-FRAND in bilateral licensing shouldn’t be deemed a breach of SEP owners’ FRAND commitments. Voluntarily offering relatively low royalty rates non-discriminately is not harmful to any licensee. Similarly, unilaterally offering licensing to all royalty-free is also harmless.

As patent pool terms are generally regarded as FRAND it should be accepted that the range of FRAND rates might be very large, given the various other differences in licensing structure and terms versus bilateral licensing.

Alternatively, perhaps Standard-Setting Organisations (SSOs) and others should regard collective licensing including patent pooling as another, distinctly different  kind of licensing arrangement to bilateral licensing — just as royalty-free is already recognised as distinct from FRAND licensing by some SSOs?[3]

Either way, patent pool rates are inapplicable benchmarks for bilateral licensing — and vice versa — in the same way that the existence of royalty-free patent pooling should not impose that pricing as an obligation on SEP owners who choose not to join such an arrangement.[4]

My full article can be downloaded, here.

---

[1] Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) is generally regarded as being the same as Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND).

[2] This contentious term seems to describe rates that fall below the range that would be considered suitable FRAND benchmarks in bilateral licensing determinations. See subsequent section on UK High Court Judgment in Samsung v. ZTE.

[3] The Patent Policies of IEEE SA and ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC accommodate “without compensation”  and “free of charge”, respectively, (i.e. royalty-free) as well as RAND licensing.

[4] Bluetooth SIG participation requires reciprocal, “without compensation” (i.e. royalty‑free) cross‑licensing. Google and others have asserted that open source video codecs including VP8, VP9 and AV1 can be implemented without paying any license fees to anyone. Nevertheless, various patents that are not available royalty-free read on those standards. Google paid off pool administrator MPEG LA so that free proposition could be maintained for VP8 implementers. Sisvel offers a licensing platform for patents essential to VP9. 

Injunctions — Perspectives from the Judiciary of Brazil Tuesday, 13 May 2026 15:00 UK | 16:00 CET

 

OxFirst is pleased to host a free webinar with Judge Victor Diz Torres, Judge at the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, speaking in his private capacity.

Injunctions — Perspectives from the Judiciary of Brazil Tuesday, 13 May 2026 15:00 UK | 16:00 CET register here: https://oxfirst.com/insights-&-news/injunctions-brazil-judiciary-may-12/

The discussion will examine when Brazilian courts grant injunctive relief in patent litigation, how such orders are enforced in practice, and how courts balance exclusivity, market access and proportionality in innovation-driven disputes.

The webinar will also explore the emerging treatment of the FRAND defence in Brazil, particularly in cases involving standard-essential patents (SEPs). Key questions include licensing conduct, good faith negotiation, competition concerns and the limits of injunctive relief where FRAND commitments are raised.

This webinar forms part of the lead-up to the 14th IP & Competition Forum, taking place in Munich on 23–24 June 2026 under the theme:

The Global Patent Chess Game: International Patent Strategy in a Fragmented World

The 14th IP & Competition Forum will bring together senior judges, patent offices, competition authorities, industry leaders and scholars to discuss SEPs, injunctions, long-arm jurisdiction, patent quality and cross-border enforcement.

Register for the free webinar: https://oxfirst.com/insights-&-news/injunctions-brazil-judiciary-may-12/

More about the 14th IP & Competition Forum: www.oxfora.org

For enquiries: info@oxfirst.com

#PatentLitigation #Injunctions #SEP #FRAND #Brazil #CompetitionLaw #IntellectualProperty #PatentStrategy #OxFirst #OxFora

Guidance on Security for Agentic AI Systems

The US National Security Agency (NSA) and international partners have released guidance on Agentic Artificial Intelligence Systems.  The Press Release states:

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) joins the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC) and others to release the Cybersecurity Information Sheet (CSI), “Careful Adoption of Agentic AI Services.”

This report is a comprehensive guide to understanding and mitigating the unique risks associated with the rise of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) within critical infrastructure, including the defense sector. The CSI highlights general security considerations for agentic AI, including the inherited risks of large language models (LLMs), increased attack surfaces, increased complexity, the evolving security landscape as the technology matures, and the need to address AI security as part of established cybersecurity paradigms. 

Unlike traditional generative AI, which typically requires human validation, agentic AI systems are designed to operate autonomously, making them a powerful tool. This presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant cybersecurity challenges organizations must address to protect national security and critical infrastructure. 

“Careful Adoption of Agentic AI Services” outlines risk spaces to consider, including:

•    Privilege Risks: Over-privileged agents can amplify the impact of a single compromise.
•    Design and Configuration Risks: Insecure design and provisioning can introduce vulnerabilities. 
•    Behavior Risks: Goal misalignment, specification gaming, deceptive behavior, and emergent capabilities can lead to unexpected or undesirable outcomes.
•    Structural Risks: The interconnected nature of agentic systems increases the attack surface and complexity.
•    Accountability Risks: The opacity of agentic systems makes accountability hard to trace, complicating auditing and compliance.

Securing agentic AI systems requires proactive measures that address risks introduced by autonomy, interconnected components, and evolving capabilities. The best practices for securing agentic AI systems are divided into the following subcategories: 
•    Designing Secure Agents
•    Developing Secure Agents
•    Managing Third-Party Components
•    Deploying Agents Securing
•    Operating Agents Securely

The report recommends deploying agentic AI incrementally, continuously assessing against evolving threat models, and maintaining strong governance, explicit accountability, rigorous monitoring, and human oversight which are essential for safe and secure operation.

Organizations that use agentic AI services, including those in the defense sector, are encouraged to review this guidance and adopt the outlined cybersecurity mitigations.  

Other agencies co-sealing this CSI are the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ), and the United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK).

The Global Patent Chess Game Comes to Munich

OxFora’s 14th IP & Competition Forum to examine SEPs, injunctions, long-arm jurisdiction and international patent strategy

Munich, Germany — 23–24 June 2026 — As patent disputes increasingly cross borders, courts, competition authorities and patent offices are becoming central actors in the global governance of innovation. Questions once seen as technical — standard-essential patents, injunctions, FRAND, long-arm jurisdiction, global rate-setting, patent quality and cross-border enforcement — now shape market access, licensing dynamics and international technology strategy.

Against this backdrop, OxFora will convene the 14th IP & Competition Forum under the theme:

The Global Patent Chess Game: International Patent Strategy in a Fragmented World Order

The Forum will examine how international patent strategy is changing in a world where litigation in one jurisdiction can influence licensing negotiations, market entry and enforcement outcomes across many others. It will address the growing role of injunctions, the strategic use of parallel proceedings, the reach of national courts, the management of global FRAND disputes, and the interaction between patent enforcement, competition law and economics.

The programme will bring together senior judicial, regulatory, patent-office, industry and academic perspectives to discuss how legal systems are responding to these pressures and whether greater predictability is possible in international patent enforcement.

Key topics include:

SEPs — FRAND — Injunctions — Long-Arm Jurisdiction — Global Licensing — Streaming — Patent Quality — Competition Policy — International Patent Strategy

Keynote speakers and senior contributors include:

·         Prof. Meier-Beck — UPC Advisory Board; Presiding Judge, German Federal Court of Justice, ret.

·         Sir James Mellor — High Court of England & Wales

·         Dr Oliver Schoen — Regional Court of Bavaria

·         Dr Hubertus Schacht — Regional Court of Bavaria

·         Judge Fabian Hoffmann — Federal Court of Justice, Germany

·         Judge Victor Jaccoud Diz Torres — Judge, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

·         Judge Juan He — Senior Judge, Intellectual Property Court, Supreme People’s Court of China

·         European Commission — DG Competition and Legal Service

·         UKIPO, DPMA, EPO & Bundeskartellamt (German Competition Authorities)

The Forum will also include perspectives from major technology, licensing and industrial stakeholders, including Nokia, BMW, Time Warner, Volkswagen, HP, Bosch BSH Haushaltsgeräte, Canon, Panasonic, Amazon and Philips.

The Forum is supported by leading sponsors including Hogan Lovells, Nokia, Thum & Partner, Freshfields, DLA Piper, Vossius, Huawei, Xiaomi, RPX and Access Advance.

“Patent enforcement has become a matter of international strategy,” said Dr Roya Ghafele, convenor of the Forum. “Injunctions, SEPs, long-arm jurisdiction and global licensing disputes are no longer isolated legal questions. They shape market access, competition and the global economic order.”

The 14th IP & Competition Forum will take place at the DPMA, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, in Munich on 23–24 June 2026.

Get involved:
https://www.oxfora.org
info@oxfirst.com

Media contact:
OxFora
Email: info@oxfirst.com
Website: https://www.oxfora.org/

 

U.S. Treasury Department Active in Addressing Cybersecurity Issues

The U.S. Treasury Department recently issued two press releases concerning cybersecurity.  First, the Treasury Department created a cybersecurity information sharing initiative for U.S. digital assert companies.  Second, the Treasury Department sanctioned actors who stole trade secrets involving cybersecurity tools from a U.S. company.  The Press Releases are below. 

Treasury Launches Cybersecurity Information Sharing Initiative for the Digital Asset Industry

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection (OCCIP) announced a new initiative to strengthen cybersecurity across the digital asset industry. The initiative will provide timely, actionable cybersecurity information to eligible U.S. digital asset firms and industry organizations, helping them better identify, prevent, and respond to cyber threats targeting their customers and networks. The effort advances a key recommendation from the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets report, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.

Treasury leadership highlights the growing importance of digital asset firms to the broader financial system.

“Digital asset firms are an increasingly important part of the U.S. financial sector, and their resilience is critical to the health of the broader system,” said Luke Pettit, Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions. “By extending access to the same high-quality cybersecurity information used by traditional financial institutions, Treasury is helping promote a more secure and responsible digital asset ecosystem.”

Treasury also emphasized that cybersecurity is foundational to the future of digital finance and essential to responsible innovation.

“This initiative reflects the principles of the GENIUS Act by promoting responsible innovation grounded in strong cybersecurity and operational resilience,” said Tyler Williams, Counselor to the Secretary for Digital Assets. “As digital assets become more integrated into the financial system, access to timely and actionable cyber threat information is essential to protecting consumers and safeguarding the stability of U.S. financial markets.”

Treasury cybersecurity officials noted that the initiative responds directly to a rapidly evolving threat environment.

“Cyber threats targeting digital asset platforms are growing in frequency and sophistication,” said Cory Wilson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity. “This initiative expands access to actionable threat information that helps firms strengthen defenses, reduce risk, and respond more effectively to incidents.”

Eligible U.S. digital asset firms and industry organizations that meet Treasury’s criteria will be able to receive, at no cost, the same actionable cybersecurity information Treasury regularly shares with traditional U.S. financial institutions. Interested firms are encouraged to contact OCCIP at OCCIP-Coord@treasury.gov for more information.

 

Treasury Sanctions Exploit Broker Network for Theft and Sale of U.S. Government Cyber Tools

February 24, 2026

First-Ever Action Under the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act

WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Sergey Sergeyevich Zelenyuk (Zelenyuk) and his company, Matrix LLC (doing business as Operation Zero), as well as five associated individuals and entities, for their acquisition and distribution of cyber tools harmful to U.S. national security.  Zelenyuk and Operation Zero trade in “exploits”—pieces of code or techniques that take advantage of vulnerabilities in a computer program to allow users to gain unauthorized access, steal information, or take control of an electronic device—and have offered rewards to anyone who will provide them with exploits for U.S.-built software.  Among the exploits that Operation Zero acquired were at least eight proprietary cyber tools, which were created for the exclusive use of the U.S. government and select allies and which were stolen from a U.S. company.  Operation Zero then sold those stolen tools to at least one unauthorized user.

“If you steal U.S. trade secrets, we will hold you accountable,” said Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.  “Treasury will continue to work alongside the rest of the Trump Administration to protect sensitive American intellectual property and safeguard our national security.”

This action coincides with an investigation by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Peter Williams, an Australian national and a former employee of the aforementioned U.S. company who pleaded guilty on October 29, 2025, to two counts of theft of trade secrets. 

Williams stole several proprietary cyber tools from the company between 2022 and 2025 and sold them to Operation Zero in exchange for millions of dollars paid in cryptocurrencies.

OFAC is designating Zelenyuk, Operation Zero, and the five associated individuals and entities pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13694, as further amended by E.O. 14306 (“E.O. 13694, as further amended”).  In parallel with this action, the Department of State is sanctioning Zelenyuk, Operation Zero, and an affiliated UAE company, Special Technology Services LLC FZ (STS) pursuant to the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act (PAIPA).  These are the first persons sanctioned under this law, which provides for sanctions against persons who have knowingly engaged in, or benefitted from, significant theft of trade secrets of United States persons, if the theft of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States.  Please refer to the Department of State’s press release for more information about this action under PAIPA. 

ZELENYUK’S ACQUISITION AND SALE OF CYBER TOOLS

Russian national Zelenyuk,through his St. Petersburg, Russia-headquartered company Operation Zero, has been active as an exploit broker since 2021.  Operation Zero has offered millions of dollars in bounties to cybersecurity researchers and others for the development or acquisition of exploits targeting commonly used software, including U.S.-built operating systems and encrypted messaging applications.  Operation Zero does not disclose the discovered exploits to the companies developing the affected software, and Operation Zero customers could use the tools to launch ransomware attacks or engage in other malign activities.  In advertisements and other public-facing materials, Zelenyuk and Operation Zero have stated that they will only sell the exploits they acquire to customers from non-NATO countries.  Zelenyuk, through Operation Zero, has sought to sell exploits to foreign intelligence agencies.  Zelenyuk and Operation Zero have also sought to develop other cyber intelligence systems, including spyware and methods to extract personal identifying information and other sensitive data uploaded by users of artificial intelligence applications like large language models.  Operation Zero has sought to recruit hackers to support its activities and develop business relationships with foreign intelligence agencies through use of social media.

OFAC is designating Zelenyuk and Operation Zero pursuant to E.O. 13694, as further amended, for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States, and that have the purpose of or involve causing a misappropriation of funds or economic resources, intellectual property, proprietary or business confidential information, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.

. . .